Residents urge Planning Commission to reject East Woodward–Pillsbury gas station proposal

Several residents and neighbors of the Woodward neighborhood urged the Manteca Planning Commission on May 15 to reject a proposed gas station, drive‑thru and retail development at Woodward Avenue and Pillsbury Road, saying the site is surrounded on all sides by homes and is adjacent to two parks.

The public-comment period included repeated objections on safety, traffic, noise, light and pollution. “It's car centric. It's a 16 pump gas station that's open 24 hours a day, fast food drive thru and many more,” said Brad Delk, identifying himself as a resident and neighbor. Multiple speakers said the project would bring thousands of additional vehicle trips onto a narrow residential street and would place late‑night activity close to children, seniors and parks.

The residents framed the concerns in land‑use and legal terms. Joseph Rosamond, a Manteca resident, noted the city already uses stricter local setbacks for some uses and said the city “can and does go above state requirements to protect neighborhoods.” He urged the commission to treat gas stations like other high‑impact uses and consider setbacks or limits.

Speakers referenced the project’s environmental review and modeling. Cindy Weese said the developer’s initial study was “light and incomplete” and does not account for commute‑hour behavior, noise, dust or hazards from hazardous materials such as fuel. Mike Steckler (identified in the record as a long‑time Woodward resident) and others said traffic already creates safety problems for children walking and biking to school and that the project would worsen speeding, running stop signs and pedestrian risk.

Multiple speakers said nearby large projects — including the Hat Ranch development and other new subdivisions — will increase Pillsbury Road traffic and that the gas station would create a corridor of increased traffic. Michael Flanagan said the proposal “threatens the safety and well‑being of our most vulnerable residents, our school age children and older neighbors.” Benjamin Sanchez described heavy morning pedestrian and scooter traffic near the site and said a single entrance or exit on Pillsbury would be insufficient.

Speakers also raised property‑value and nuisance concerns. Rosamond cited national studies on decreased home values near gas stations; others said 24‑hour lighting, noise and late‑night loitering would degrade neighborhood quality of life. Several asked the city to consider alternatives for the parcel—such as mixed‑use, local retail, medical/professional offices or senior housing—rather than a round‑the‑clock gas station and drive‑thru.

Not all procedural or legal specifics were settled at the meeting. Commenters asked the commission to require a full Environmental Impact Report rather than rely on a mitigated negative declaration; Mike Steckler cited studies he said indicate updated health risk data should trigger more extensive review. The transcript records requests for ordinance changes (for setbacks, nuisance business rules or 24‑hour restrictions) but no formal ordinance change was proposed or decided during public comment.

The public comment period for the project closed before the commission took up separate items on the agenda. Commissioners heard the speakers but did not take a commission vote on the Pillsbury/Woodward project during this meeting; the record shows the public comments were entered and supplemental letters were added to the project file.